damaged.  Yet, whilst admitting that the evidence is inconclusive, I cannot refrain from suggesting Torbido’s name as possible author of the “Shepherd,” the more so as we know he carefully studied and formed his style upon Giorgione’s work.[62] It is at least conceivable that he took Giorgione’s “David with the Head of Goliath,” and by a simple, and in this case peculiarly appropriate, transformation, changed him into a shepherd boy holding a flute.

We have now taken all the pictures which either Crowe and Cavalcaselle or Morelli, or both, assign to Giorgione himself.  There still remain, however, three or four works to be mentioned where these authorities hold opposite views which require some examination.

First and foremost comes the “Concert” in the Pitti Gallery, a work which was regarded by Crowe and Cavalcaselle not only as a genuine example of Giorgione’s art, but as “not having its equal in any period of Giorgione’s practice.  It gives,” they go on, “a just measure of his skill, and explains his celebrity."[63] Morelli, on the contrary, holds:  “It has unfortunately been so much damaged by a restorer that little enough remains of the original, yet from the form of the hands and of the ear, and from the gestures of the figures, we are led to infer that it is not a work of Giorgione, but belongs to a somewhat later period.  If the repaint covering the surface were removed we should, I think, find that it is an early work by Titian."[64] Where Morelli hesitated his followers have decided, and accordingly, in Mr. Berenson’s list, in Mr. Claude Phillips’ “Life of Titian,” and in the latest biography on that master, published by Dr. Gronau, we find the “Concert” put down to Titian.  On the other hand, Dr. Bode, Signor Conti in his monograph on Giorgione, M. Muentz, and the authorities in Florence support the traditional view that the “Concert” is a masterpiece of Giorgione.

[Illustration:  Alinari photo.  Pitti Gallery, Florence

THE CONCERT]

Which view is the right one?  To many this may appear an academic discussion of little value, for, ipso facto, the quality of the work is admitted by all.  The picture is a fine thing, in spite of its imperfect condition, and what matter whether Titian or Giorgione be the author?  But to this sort of argument it may be said that until we do know what is Giorgione’s work and what is not, it is impossible to gauge accurately the nature and scope of his art, or to reach through that channel the character of the artist behind his work.  In the case of Giorgione and Titian, the task of drawing the dividing line is one of unusual difficulty, and a long and careful study of the question has convinced me that this will have to be done in a way that modern criticism has not yet attempted.  From the very earliest days the two have been so inextricably confused that it will require a very exhaustive re-examination of all the evidence in the light of modern discoveries,